asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present re-engagement rate for ratings of the Royal Navy completing their first period of service; if the figure is satisfactory; and if he will make a statement.

In asking this Question, Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, say how very glad we are to see you back?

May I associate myself warmly with the good wishes of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney)?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the re-engagement rate at present is perhaps even more important than the recruitment rate, and that to get a good re-engagement rate we must promise both officers and ratings a long and secure career? Are we to hear more about the expansion of the Navy, so confidently forecast by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at Chatham, Devonport and elsewhere?

I entirely agree that we will not solve our problems only through recruiting, because by re-engagement we get trained men whom we could not get in years of training with recruits. I am not going to make any hopeful noises until I am certain that we can take positive action along the line I have suggested.

Is the Minister aware that the disincentive effect of the sort of noises the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making last week about cutting our defence commitments in various parts of the world will have a very grave effect on the re-engagement rate, and will he do what he can to persuade his right hon. Friend to be a little more sensible?

The hon. Gentleman has enough knowledge of these matters to know the principal difficulties we are up against—family separation and serious matters of that kind—and these will not be affected by the Chancellor's statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a requirement exists for the production of a variable geometry carrier-borne multipurpose aircraft suitable for inter-Service use; and if he will make a statement.

We are reviewing all aspects of defence policy and until the review is complete I am not prepared to make any statement on this question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the great possibilities of the variable geometry principle at a time when our tactical air requirements all over the world have become more and more a question of operations from aircraft carriers? Does he realise what an important effect developments of this nature would have on the whole aviation industry, and on civil aviation, too?

There is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, but I am afraid that I am not prepared to comment further at this time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the Cameron Barracks, Inverness and Fort George.

About half of Cameron Barracks, Inverness, is to be used to accommodate Territorial Army units and the Regimental Headquarters of the Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Cameron). The future of the remainder is under consideration.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is considerable concern at the uncertainty about the final use of both these buildings, particularly, for example, in regard to Fort George, and that there are considerable potentialities for the development of tourism in association with the beach which is adjacent to the fort? Will the hon. Gentleman bear these things in mind and reach a quick determination of what exactly should be done with these buildings?

I will certainly keep in touch with the local authorities on both these cases. In regard to Fort George, we will not be able to look at that in greater detail until we have seen how the present proposed use works out in the area. This fort was built to maintain Hanoverian rule over rebellious and reluctant Scottish peasantry. But they seem to have succeeded in revolting again last month.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representation of the deceased, or of the deceased's next of kin, is permitted at Service inquiries in substitution of inquests overseas, upon the death by accident of a Service man.

These Service inquiries are not in substitution of inquests. They are strictly domestic and non-judicial for the purpose of determining whether Service procedures are being complied with and whether they require improvement and for reporting the facts to higher Service authorities. Thus representation of next-of-kin would be inappropriate.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the next-of-kin are very interested, because this is very similar to an inquest and the next-of-kin can only learn from this whether their son or husband was to blame? Is he aware that there is a rule of procedure which says that when anyone's character or conduct may be impugned he is entitled to be represented? Why should not a dead man have the same entitlement as a live man?

The rule does not say anyone. There may be Service men involved in subsequent disciplinary proceedings. This is not like an inquest. The proceedings are confidential and there is no judicial procedure, and thus it would be very difficult for the next-of-kin to be represented.

Is an inquest held as well when a Service man dies as a result of an accident?

It depends on the country. In Germany, for instance, they do not have our procedure.

Would the Minister look at this again from the point of view of the relatives of a man killed in Germany? Is he aware that the relatives are at a disadvantage compared with the case where a death takes place in this country, and will he look sympathetically at this whole question?

I appreciate the anxiety felt, and a thorough inquiry was made quite recently to see if we could cover this point. The trouble is that we cannot hold an inquest in Germany, but it is, on the other hand, possible to hold an inquest in this country on deaths that have occurred in Germany.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the development of British surface-to-surface missiles for the Royal Navy and the Army.

I am reviewing the content of the defence programme as a whole and until the review is complete I am not prepared to make any statement on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Navy has no surface-to-surface missiles while the Army operates the obsolete Corporal, the Germans have the Sergeant, and the Americans have no fewer than 37 surface-to-surface missiles? Will he look at this carefully?

I am very well aware of these facts. One of the things that I noticed when I took office was that my predecessor on cancelling Blue Water, after an expenditure of £32 million, left the British Army totally dependent upon the United States for ground-to-ground missiles.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the absence of a surface-to-surface guided missile for the Royal Navy the main arm of the Fleet remains the fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft?

I think that is the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the present level of recruitment to the Army.

I shall continue with current recruiting measures which have succeeded in increasing the other rank strength of the Army, including young soldiers, to 156,980. This represents an increase of over 5,000 in the last 10 months, and the Army's strength is now within 2 per cent. of the 160,000 other ranks at which we are aiming.

On the assumption that the Rhine Army is to be increased to its target strength of 55,000, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present recruiting rate is sufficient to enable us to meet that target or is the target to be met by withdrawing troops from other areas?

The hon. Gentleman is an old enough Parliamentarian to realise that he should not try to anticipate Questions put down by his hon. Friends later on the Order Paper, and therefore I shall leave the question of the Rhine Army until those Questions are reached. I am satisfied that the target of 160,000 men, which was set by the previous Government, will be reached towards the end of next year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest task facing this country at the present time is the problem of increasing its imports and that to do that we need—[Interruption.]—I mean exports. I am coming to the point which hon. Members opposite will not like. Is he aware that the economic difficulties of this country cannot be solved until we reduce armies, like the British Army on the Rhine, and face our economic problem, which is the supreme task, and we hope that the Government will face it?

The question of the Rhine Army is to be dealt with on a later Question. I am quite sure that we can maintain an Army of the size indicated, although I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern that if we had no armed forces at all then of course we should incur no expense for them. I cannot share that point of view.

In view of the pre-election and election pledges on increased manpower made by the party opposite, can the Minister say whether increased manpower targets were set at the Chequers meeting, and in view of the fact that his Ministry and the Treasury seem to be pursuing rival defence policies and briefings, can he say whether the Treasury's approval for more men has been obtained?

I think that Questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be addressed to him and not to me. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said in reply to several Questions, we are in the course of reviewing our defence policies and requirements, and it would be very premature and unwise to disclose bits and pieces before that review is completed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, when the Royal Air Force is to be equipped with the TSR2 and with supersonic vertical take-off and landing aircraft; what progress is being made with crew training in both cases; and if he will make a statement.

I shall be making a full statement when the Government's review of defence policy has been completed.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give some information to the House and some idea of what is the state of his mind on these things? Could he not, for example, say what progress the advanced weapons system TSR2 is making in overcoming its inevitable teething troubles, and would he press on, as a matter of urgency, with the V.T.O.L. supersonic Hunter replacement? Would he not agree that both these projects are vital to the future of the Royal Air Force, and will he end the prevailing atmosphere of uncertainty which is doing nothing but harm?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes me to break a precedent so firmly established by his right hon. Friend, my predecessor, the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of some of the rumours that have been circulating about the TSR2, many people believe that he is going to foist the Bucanneer as a replacement for the Canberra, and will he deny this as early as possible?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will initiate a complete review of the system of commuting pensions of non-commissioned ranks in the Armed Forces, including the delays in making the commuted pension available, and the basis on which the commuted pension quantum is computed.

I am looking into the hon. Member's suggestions and will write to him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two things? One is the sense of injustice experienced by people who have commuted their pension and do not receive any extra money when there is a Pension (Increase) Act on the part of the pension which has been commuted? Secondly, will he bear in mind the necessity for speed in commuting pensions for ex-Service men who come out with specific motives, for instance to take over a business, a pub or a shop, and who are unable to get the money to do so before the business is sold to someone else?

We shall certainly look into those points. We are worried about the anomalies which exist between commutation rights for officers and those for other ranks.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce expenditure on nuclear weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated saving on nuclear weapons is likely to be as a result of Her Majesty's Government's new policy.

I have nothing to add to what I said in my speech in this House last Monday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very grave concern in this House and in the country at the distortion of our national economy caused by the burden of over £2,000 million a year being spent on armaments, thrust upon the people of this country by the previous Administration, and will he make these views known on his forthcoming visit to Washington?

The hon. Lady will know that I made this point myself last week.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that any saving on nuclear weapons which comes about should be redirected to strengthening the economy and the social services at home, which are so essential at the present time, and that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that military strength depends on economic strength at home?

As to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that he was quoting the words which I used myself in the debate last Monday. As to the first part, I would say that it will be Her Majesty's Government's intention to make sure that this country has the defences required to ensure its own security and influence in the world, and this must be the first call on defence savings.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to accede to these requests and make quite certain that he will do nothing to damage the defence of our country?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the total direct and indirect expenditure this year on nuclear weapons; and what proposals he has for reducing it.

It would not be in the public interest to disclose these figures. As I have explained, it is too early for me to announce publicly our future plans for nuclear weapons.

Is it not a fact that any attempt to keep up with the United States or Russia in the nuclear arms race would worsen the financial mess left by the previous Government?

As I pointed out in the defence debate last week, it is essential that Britain should decide which of its major defence rôles shall have priority. I indicated that it should not be the nuclear one.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the Colonial Secretary as to whether he put up his Parliamentary Private Secretary to ask this Question?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the retention of the British military base at Aden.

Her Majesty's Government's policy is to retain the base, in agreement with the Government of the Federation of South Arabia, for so long as it is required to serve the interests which we have in common.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are very glad that something positive has come out of the meeting? Is he also aware that we welcome very much this decision, which we think will be welcomed also by many people in Aden and South Arabia who recognise that while we have strong strategic reasons for maintaining the base they also have strong economic reasons for wishing us to do so?

I believe that this is indeed the case, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that I made this point myself several months ago.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer how very undesirable it is to continue to make uncertain pronouncements about the cut-back that we are going to make in our defence commitments, one of which may be Aden, because this encourages the sort of action which we saw yesterday, the very regrettable bomb explosions in Aden, because people think that they can shove us off if they try?

I think that the hon. Member, in seeking to link these two events, is making a connection which can bear no conceivable relationship to the truth, and he knows this as well as I do. If he regards uncertainty as to the commitments which this country will maintain as undesirable, he should not seek deliberately to increase that uncertainty by making unwarranted imputations about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Would my right hon. Friend say what representation he is making to the Egyptian Government who are suspected of being responsible for these recent bomb outrages?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statements which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which have put every rôle in doubt and made every project now unsure, is a state of affairs which could not continue without putting our defences at a very great disadvantage in the world? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity of conveying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the request that he does not make any more statements before Christmas, and himself try to clear up these defence aspects as soon as possible?

I am quite satisfied that what my right hon. Friend he Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I have seen the text of his statement and, of course, I heard it in the House, as all hon. Members did—is precisely in line with what I said on Monday of the previous week, occasioning no particular questioning from hon. Members opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring average wages for Her Majesty's Dockyards both for skilled and unskilled workers up to the national average.

The latest available figures of national average earnings are for April, 1964, when they were £17 12s. 5d. for 47·8 hours. The dockyard figure for the same date was £17 ls. 9d., also for 47·8 hours. In drawing any comparison it is necessary to take into account the value of superior fringe benefits enjoyed by the dockyard worker which, in fact, makes him better off than the average man nationally.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his party has a very bad record in the dockyards, that between 1945 and 1950 the wages of both skilled and unskilled rose by 6s. whereas under the Conservative Government they rose by 10s. a year? Neither is enough, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do something more for the dockyards.

I find from the reception in the dockyards to the change of Government that it has been very much to the delight of the people who work there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of Her Majesty's ships have used the Simonstown naval base in the last three years.

Five frigates, four submarines, an icebreaker, and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The frigates each spent 16 weeks at Simonstown for maintenance and repairs. The icebreaker and the R.F.A. also undertook maintenance and repairs there.

While expressing relief that the future use of this base seems to be more assured, may I ask whether it is not a fact that those figures are not a true reflection of its importance, as there are no other dockyard facilities on the route round the Cape?

If the hon. Gentleman wished for figures and facts on that particular point, he should have asked for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps he is taking to establish an alternative base to that at Simonstown;

There is no question of our losing the facilities we enjoy under the Simonstown Agreement.

Does not my right hon. Friend think it reprehensible that this country should be dependent on the good will of a quite reactionary Nazi-type régime such as exists in South Africa? Is it not the case that the military advice that my right hon. Friend gets is against the suggestion that this is so vital to our defence programme? If so, would not my right hon. Friend think again of looking for alternative bases where we have not got to depend on this kind of régime?

This base is of considerable value to the Royal Navy and, as I said before, we have no intention of seeking to abandon it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only possible alternative to Simonstown is vastly to increase the tremendously expensive fleet train?

No.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has tremendous sympathy from this side of the House in having to resist the remarks that are made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)? Is he aware that we also sympathise with him in having to deal with South Africa on this important topic, in view of the irritation caused to that country by the Prime Minister himself?

I think the hon. Gentleman's expressions of sympathy are misplaced and unrequired.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he has had with the Australian Government over the defence aspect in the Far East of the Simonstown Agreement.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in any consideration he may be giving to the position of Simonstown he should make sure to take the Australian Government into the closest possible consideration?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Simonstown Agree- ment is a bilateral agreement, but of course in any consideration of the Simonstown base we take into account the needs of Commonwealth countries, indeed of all countries with which we are in defence relationship.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the findings of the committee inquiring into British defence interests in space, under the chairmanship of Professor Bondi, will be made public.

No, Sir.

Why is the Secretary of State being so secretive? Is it not in the general defence interests of the country that the findings of previous committees should be published while we are awaiting the findings of the Bondi Committee?

I think this arises from the hon. Gentleman's next Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why it is the practice not to give information about the general conclusions reached by committees that have recently sat on the question of space, or the names of their chairmen.

The task of official committees is to provide confidential advice to Ministers, and it has never been the general practice to publish the findings or membership of such committees.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now that he has publicly stated that Professor Bondi is not going to make the findings of the committee public, surely we should know what the findings of these other official committees were, particularly as there were on those committees some very distinguished people? How much did they advise should be spent and what were the priorities given?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that when official committees are set up under the chairmanship of an official to advise the Minister, it is highly undesirable that the committee's conclusions or the evidence which it considered should be published. The Bondi Committee which has just been set up is a committee with an independent chairman, with wide outside representation. That is why Her Majesty's Government decided to publish the fact that it was being established but on this, as on previous committees, it is not the intention of the Government to publish the report.

Is it not undesirable when it is not intended to publish the names or to refer to the members of a committee or its findings, that it should be mentioned in this House or anywhere else? Surely, it should remain completely confidential?

I have just stated that in this case of the Bondi Committee a very distinguished independent chairman was appointed and wide outside representation was invited. It was in order to prevent unnecessary speculation on the existence of the committee and additional risks to security that it was decided to publish the fact that it had been appointed, and I think the House will recognise that this was a wise decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the ground support unit will be accommodated at Royal Air Force, Tangmere, and for how long it is proposed to remain at this station.

The 38 Group Ground Support Unit will move to Tangmere from Odiham during the first half of December. On present plans, it will stay there until early 1967, when it will return to Odiham, by which time permanent accommodation for it there will have been completed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rather temporary arrangements will cause concern to those who have been expecting permanent employment on this airfield? To what extent will the unit be Service-manned and how many extra civilian jobs will be available?

I am afraid that there will be very few extra civilian jobs available—probably between 10 and 15—because the ground support unit is Service-manned and virtually self-contained.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that an adequate number of suitable lodgings and furnished houses in the Weymouth and Portland area is available for the accommodation of officers and petty officers of the Royal Navy and their families; and what steps he is taking in regard to the provision of such accommodation.

There is no great difficulty in housing officers and their families in this area; there is a short waiting list for chief and petty officers, and a slightly longer one for junior ratings; the position will improve from the end of this year onwards because we are building a large number of married quarters.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the interval the position is likely to be made worse by the provisions of the Protection from Eviction Bill, which will operate very harshly on landlords and landladies in seaports and seaside resorts? Will he make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in respect of the Service he represents?

In this case I do not anticipate difficulty. We have a large number, 46 officers' and 150 ratings' married quarters, going up from the beginning of this year and ending by 1966. Bearing in mind the present demand, we do not expect difficulty in this area.

Does not this depend on families leaving when the ratings go overseas? Is there not equally a difficulty when these families have to find accommodation somewhere else in the country? What arrangements does the hon. Gentleman have for that?

I am not aware that that problem, although it exists, arises in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the fact that the Greenham Common Air Base has been unoccupied since last June, he will consult other Government Departments, including the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Health, so that it may be put to an alternative use without further delay, if it is not required for defence purposes.

Other Government Departments, including the two referred to by the hon. Member, have already been consulted.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he is satisfied that the high standard of British officers from Sandhurst for the Brigade of Gurkhas is being maintained; and if he will make a statement;

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gurkha troops are now enlisted in Her Majesty's Forces; where they are serving; what is the rate of recruitment; and whether he will make a statement on the future policy concerning the maintenance of the Gurkha Brigade.

I am satisfied that the officers accepted by the Brigade of Gurkhas are, in every way, up to the high standard required.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, although the Brigade of Gurkhas is getting the required numbers of British officers from Sandhurst, I am informed that they are not of the high standard that they were a few years ago and that this is because parents of these young men do not believe that they have a settled career in the Gurkha Brigade? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allay this anxiety. In regard to my second Question on Gurkha recruiting generally, there is still a feeling in the Gurkha Brigade that they have not got a very settled future and this is affecting recruiting in Nepal, and the general problem of —[Interruption.] I have two Questions on the Order Paper. This is affecting recruiting and maintenance in the Gurkha Brigade. I suggest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—that one of the Ministers should go to Nepal and look at these problems for himself.

In reply to the first Question—

On a point of order. As a new Member I should like to know what length one is allowed for a supplementary question.

The answer is, as short as one can possibly manage on every occasion.

I shall endeavour to set an example by giving short replies, although the points raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman are of importance to many hon. Members. We are satisfied that the quality of candidates at Sandhurst who opt for the Gurkhas is up to the standard required. It is true that their average passing out mark has been a little lower last year than in previous years, but there were 12 who chose the Gurkhas this year against 10 in the previous year. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that even if the proposals of the previous Administration were proceeded with to cut down the Gurkhas there would be a career for young men who opt for the Gurkha Brigade. I hope to take the opportunity to go to see them in Malaysia, including Borneo.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work they are doing in Borneo is absolutely invaluable? When he goes to try to increase recruiting, will he see that leave and facilities for the Gurkhas at home stations are improved?

I repeat that it is my intention to go to see for myself at the first opportunity. The intake of recruits this year was 900 men and 100 boys, which is the maximum the training organisation can handle in any year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have for the construction of additions to, or replacements of, warships in Her Majesty's Navy; and what criteria will be employed by Her Majesty's Government in deciding where such orders will be placed.

We intend to follow the normal practice of placing orders for ships by competitive tender whenever possible. In this way, all firms capable of building the ships, including those in areas of underemployment, have equal opportunity to win the contracts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when placing these contracts the magnificent record of Harland and Wolff in two world wars and since in building ships of every class from frigates to aircraft carriers?

I shall bear that fact in mind, together with all other relevant considerations.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether in placing these contracts any preferential treatment can be given to yards which happen to be in development districts?

I think the whole House will agree that it is the duty of the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the country gets the weapons it needs as good, as fast and as cheaply as possible, but experience has shown that it is possible to meet the needs of development districts consistent with these considerations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to the first part of the Question? Can he tell us what plans the Government have for construction or additions to or replacement of warships? Will he bear in mind that in a celebrated speech at Plymouth on 17th December the Prime Minister promised a greatly increased naval shipbuilding programme, and that we should like to know what the Government have in mind?

I think you, Mr. Speaker, would agree that the business of the House would be accelerated if hon. Members would read the Order Paper. There is a Question on this subject to be asked by one of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay).

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present strength of the Ever-Readies; and whether he will make a statement as to the future rôle of this body.

6,297, on 31st October, 1964. No change in the rôle of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve is contemplated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend these men to serve overseas? What rôle has he in mind for them in Germany?

The rôle we have in mind is precisely that under which they are enlisted, that they are available at very short notice to reinforce the Regular Army for a period up to six months. If the circumstances were to justify their being called up for this purpose, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would decide to do so.

Would my hon. Friend be good enough to inform the House how much money has been wasted on this senseless project, and what this or any other Government contemplate doing with this force that has had practically no training whatever?

I cannot tell my right hon. Friend without notice the exact sum that has been spent—whether it has been wasted is perhaps a matter of opinion—but I shall send him the figure of the total cost. I can tell him that the Reserve forces as well as the Regular forces will form part of the review which my right hon. Friend is now undertaking?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the national expenditure on Cyprus from the time it became a base to 15th October, 1964; and what is now the estimated weekly cost of the base.

Defence expenditure in Cyprus from 1st December, 1954, to 15th October, 1964, was about £210 million. The estimated weekly cost of the base at present is about £400,000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time for the last 10 years that I have been able to get a satisfactory account of expenditure in Cyprus? Is he aware that if he is looking at this item of expenditure with the prospect of reviewing it, we shall be very pleased indeed? If he is going to Cyprus will he take Dr. Beeching with him?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those few kind words. I shall bear them in mind on future occasions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulty of fulfilling our obligations to C.E.N.T.O. without the Cyprus base, and will he say how over-flying rights would be affected without it?

I am fully aware of both considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the joint British-Spanish naval exercises planned for next month have been cancelled.

Provisional arrangements for this joint naval exercise had been under consideration for several months. However, the timing of the exercise was such that the new Government was left with insufficient time to consider fully all the implications. This being so, the Government felt unable to approve this particular exercise going ahead.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman finds it surprising that a proud nation like the Spaniards did not immediately react to this out-of-date political rancour. The people of Gibraltar would be the first to benefit from good Anglo-Spanish relations.

I think that on reflection the hon. Member will recognise that it was a great mistake to link recent events in Gibraltar with the British Government's action about the Spanish exercise, particularly as the threats of action in Gibraltar were made at the United Nations during the previous Administration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he and his party did not object to the holding of Anglo-Yugoslav exercises under the last Government?

The same technical considerations did not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for increasing the size of the Royal Navy.

I shall not frame proposals affecting the size of our forces until our review of defence policy as a whole has been completed.

Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that the Prime Minister made some very interesting suggestions for increasing the size of the Royal Navy—by a curious chance at Plymouth and Chatham? If these proposals should be implemented, which I am sure we all wish to see, the cost of the Royal Navy will go up rather than down.

The hon. Member will be aware that since the Labour Party was last in power the number of cruisers has decreased from 15 to two, the number of carriers from nine to four and the number of escort craft from 95 to 71. I can assure the House that the present Government will have a far better record concerning the Royal Navy than the last Government had.

Can the right hon. Gentleman quite simply say if he proposes to honour the pledge given by the Prime Minister to increase the size of the Royal Navy?

I cannot anticipate my statement on the review of defence policy and commitments now under way.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his Answer reveals that Her Majesty's patriotic Opposition is much more eager to increase the size of the Spanish Navy than the British?

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to this Question and to part of Question 23, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

It should be related to one Question only or we get into a muddle. It will have to be related to the last one.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for increasing regular recruitment to the Armed Forces.

My right hon. Friend has already dealt with recruiting for the Army.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that vague talk about reexamining defence commitments, coupled with promises, repeated today, for increasing the size of the Royal Navy, leads to considerable confusion in the Armed Forces and among those considering joining and is, therefore, likely to detract from recruiting rather than increase it?

The last Government left behind an acute manpower situation in the Royal Navy. I do not think it would be a good thing to spell out all the facts of that position. In return, perhaps the Opposition will use some restraint on this matter as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of providing a military guard at Chequers for the week ending the 21st November.

The only extra expense incurred in employing Royal Military Police at Chequers was their movement from their normal stations, which amounted to £40 10s. 0d.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people considered this a very unnecessary guard to look after a handful of Ministers? At that time—I repeat, at that time—no one wanted to shoot them. Today, of course, it is different.

I am quite satisfied that the military police even today would be able to provide adequate security. While I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not very much time for Her Majesty's Ministers, he should perhaps have some regard for the safety of the Chiefs of Staff, who were also at Chequers.

Arising from this exercise, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to work out the cost of the grooms and batmen who dance attendance upon the wives of senior officers at the Harrow and Eton cricket match?

Order. That is intriguing, but it does not arise from this Question.

Was not the purpose of this extraordinary guard to protect Ministers from a possible putsch by the Young Socialists?

I think that the hon. Gentleman could do better than that if he really tried.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which H.M.S. "Relentless" was fired upon in Cork Harbour on Saturday 21st November.

H.M.S. "Relentless" was leaving Cork Harbour and was one mile upstream from Passage West when, at 8.35 a.m., at least two men opened fire on her from a range of about 400 yards using 0.303 or similar calibre rifles. About 10 rounds were fired but, I am glad to say, there were no casualties. The damage sustained amounted to one bullet hole and one dent.

What have the Eire Government to say about this? Who were the men?

We have mentioned this to the Eire Government but I think that it is too minor an incident to expect a protest. [HON. MEMBERS: "oh."] A police cordon was set up to try to capture the two men but failed to do so, and we therefore do not know their names. Nevertheless, we should keep this in perspective. The action was outrageous but the Navy has faced more difficult engagements than this.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that there is no connection between this act and the 15 per cent. surcharge?

Has my hon. Friend considered that it might be useful to have a declaration of war on Eire in order to satisfy Ulster?

We must hope that the shooting would be better than missing a ship at 400 yards eight times out of ten.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what way he has now widened the responsibilities of the three Service Ministers on an inter-Service basis.

As the Prime Minister stated in answer to a similar Question from the hon. Member on 10th November, the Minister of Defence for the Army also acts as Deputy Secretary of State and has a particular responsibility in the field of defence questions affecting the alliance as a whole. The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy takes special interest and concern in personnel and logistics problems, and the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force co-ordinates defence budgets and the field of defence research, development and production. Each Minister retains as his prime function the management of his separate Service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Prime Minister made that statement, there have been fresh reports in the Press that further changes were being made? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny them now?

I am not responsible for any reports in the Press. On the other hand, I can repeat what I said earlier—that I do not regard the present reorganisation of the central staffs of the Defence Department as being final, and no doubt changes will be made from time to time.

Is there any procedure to make one Minister responsible for the housing arrangements of all the Services? If so, which Minister?

No, Sir. I specifically used in my Answer the phrase "interest and concern" rather than the word "responsibilities" in referring to the rôle of my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy and his relationship to personnel and logistics, for it is not possible to establish Ministerial responsibility in a certain aspect until the official organisation below him has been arranged to fit such a responsibility. But, of course, it is my hon. Friend who, at the Department, takes a particular interest and concern in this aspect of the Services.

Is it the interest and concern of the Minister that, although there is a 53 per cent. re-engagement rate in the Navy, there is still insufficient accommodation for married couples?

The Government are conscious of the fact that the provision of adequate married quarters is one of the keys to an adequate recruiting and re-engagement rate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in view of the fact that the United States Air Force are to leave the Burtonwood Air Base, what plans he has for its future other than for exercise purposes by the Royal Air Force.

We were told by the United States Air Force recently that the Burtonwood base will be handed back to the Royal Air Force on 30th June, 1965. We are now considering its use after that date.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling that this base could be used for peaceful purposes and integrated into the air development schemes for the North-West?

As I have said, we are considering the further use of the base but it is too early to make a definite announcement about it.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the purpose for which the United States Air Force has used the Burtonwood Base is a peaceful one?

Indeed it is.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Burtonwood provided substantial employment for a number of residents of Liverpool?

We have that very much in mind. About 300 civilians are employed there now and about 50 will be offered alternative employment with the U.S. Air Force at Ruislip. Most of those who are established will, we hope, be able to accept alternative employment elsewhere. The staff as a whole are being informed today about their prospects after the base is closed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive replacements for the Shackleton aircraft of Coastal Command; and what aircraft these will be.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 16th November, 1964.

Is there not an urgent need for replacement of this aircraft? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was in the minds of the previous Government and that it is essential for the Services to have a decision at an early date? Is he further aware that it is also in the interest of our own aircraft industry that we should know whether this aircraft will be built here or abroad?

I am reviewing the content of the defence programme, including the question of replacing the Shackleton, and I am not prepared to go beyond that statement at the present time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the purchase of a foreign aircraft as a replacement? Will he answer "yes" or "no"?

It would not be fair to list the aircraft we are considering but they include all those which may conceivably meet our requirements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is to be the future use of the Royal Air Force Station at Marham, Norfolk.

The Royal Air Force will need to retain Marham as an active flying station as far ahead as can be foreseen.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this will bring relief to civilians employed in the area, particularly in view of the rumours during the election campaign which suggested that the base would be closed?

Those rumours had no foundation in fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to secure a high rate of retention of personnel in the women's Services; and if he will make a statement.

We are starting a bonus scheme for this purpose. Those who enlist for six years and serve the full period will get a taxable bonus of £130. Those already serving on a shorter initial engagement will be able to qualify for a taxable bonus of £65 by extending their service for two years. The scheme does not apply to officers.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again? I think it refers to cases where women in the Services do not get married—which may be contrary to public policy.

From my point of view, marriage is a great bugbear. It takes our people away. I am all for having a bonus which will encourage them to go the full length of their engagement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to 55,000 men.

As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Secretary of State made clear in Bonn on 29th October, we accept this commitment, but the date must depend on our other overseas commitments and the rate of recruitment for the Regular Army.

What does that mean? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the uncertainty aroused by that Answer and by the pronouncements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves us very much in the air? Is he further aware that the dangers outside Europe are very great but that the diplomatic necessity of staying in Europe makes it very desirable to do so? Where exactly do these inspired leaks come from? Do they not come from Chequers? Should not the Paymaster-General look into the question of how these reports came to be in the Press at the weekend?

The hon. Gentleman asked what my statement meant. It meant exactly the same as was meant by my predecessor in January and repeated by the then Seretary of State for War on 11th March last:

"It remains our objective to reach a strength of 55,000 as soon as we can, dependent on recruitment and commitments in other overseas spheres."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 412.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of how it was that contradictory briefings were given to the Press? This has increased the confusion.

If we wanted to fulfil this commitment—which was not fulfilled by the previous Government—is it not essential that the West German Government should make a substantial contrition to the support costs?

I think that there is a general feeling on both sides of the House that our responsibilities in this respect would be easier to carry out if the West German Government were more prepared to help meet the cost in foreign exchange.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Obviously, inspired briefings of the Press took place at the weekend. Almost every Sunday newspaper gave out the statement that B.A.O.R. is to be cut down and that statement must cause the very gravest concern everywhere. Can we not get to a stage where at least we have some statement about which rôles the Government are to keep and which they are to abandon?

With the right hon. Gentleman's experience in this office, he will know how difficult it is to determine what the Press will say on any particular day on any particular subject. On the question of the priority of defence rôles which the Government intend to fulfil, I shall, of course, make my statement as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman consistently failed to give any guidance on this matter during his two years of office.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us think that the commitment by a previous Government to keep a British Army of this size in Germany until the end of the century was one of the most irresponsible commitments ever made by a British Government? Will he also bear in mind that this view seems to have been upheld by the fact that the last Government were never able to carry out the pledge? Many of us on this side of the House would give him very strong support if he took up with our allies the question of reducing this figure very drastically to one commensurate with the country's economic position?

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps I can remind him that the commitment which right hon. Gentlemen opposite originally undertook to fulfil was considerably larger than that of the 55,000 men to which the present Government remain committed.